ORDER Srinivasan, J. 1. The petitioner herein is the landlord, whose petition for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement for own occupation and commission of acts of waste, has failed before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The allegation of the petitioner with regard to acts of waste is that the respondent having agreed under the oral lease not to have an oven in the demised premises, caused damage to the premises by putting up a oven. As regard the other ground, the case of the petitioner is that he requires the shop let out to the respondent for having a reception room to enable him to run a lodge for which purpose he is constructing several rooms in accordance with a sanctioned plan. The Courts below having negatived both the claims, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 2. When the revision was being argued, the respondent, tenant filed an affidavit that the land-lord had put up a room on the first floor in between the Arya Bhavan Hotel and the petition premises, which can be gainfully used as the reception room for the lodge and that it was more spacious then the petition premises. It was also stated in the said affidavit that the passage between Arya Bhavan Hotel and the stair case was dosed by a wooden door of 6 feet height and 35 feet width. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit to the effect that the closure of the passage was only to use the said place for storing building materials such as Cement, bricks, etc. in order to avoid theft and entry of stray animals. According to the said counter, it was only a temporary structure by putting up 41/2" well-on the backyard and the shutter in the front and that it would be removed as soon as the lodge starts functioning. It was further stated that the room in the first floor between Arya Bhavan Hotel and the petition premises cannot be used as a reception room for the lodge. In view of the conflicting affidavits, I passed an order on 30.9.1988 directing the Rent Controller to record evidence adduced by both parties and forward the same to this Court. Accordingly, the Rent Controller recorded further evidence adduced by both parties and has sent the same to this Court. 2. In view of the conflicting affidavits, I passed an order on 30.9.1988 directing the Rent Controller to record evidence adduced by both parties and forward the same to this Court. Accordingly, the Rent Controller recorded further evidence adduced by both parties and has sent the same to this Court. 2. It is now settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hasmat Rai and Anr. v. Raghunath Prasad and Variety Emporium v. V.R.M. Mohamed Ibrahim Naina that in a proceeding for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of premises by landlord, the requirement must not only exist on the date of the action, but subsist till the final decree or an order of eviction is made and events subsequent to the filing of the petition ought to be taken into account for the purpose of finding out whether the landlord still requires the premises in possession of the tenant. Hence, the entire evidence on record including the evidence now recorded by the Rent Controller pursuant to my order dated 30.9.1988 should be considered for deciding the question of bona fide requirement of the petitioner. 3. Under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put him in possession of a non-residential building other than that covered by Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act, for purposes of a business which he is carrying on if he does not occupy a non-residential building of his own. The essential condition which makes the landlord eligible for filing an application under the Sub-section is that he is not occupying a building of his own for the purposes of his business. If the condition is not fulfilled, the application ceases to be maintainable. If the condition is fulfilled, then the landlord should establish the bona fide of his requirement. (Vide Hamedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal sowcar. In order to sustain an application for eviction under the said Sub-section, it is the duty of the landlord to set out in the pleading that the conditions required by the said Sub-section are satisfied. The facts necessary therefor should be pleaded expressly. Absence of the necessary pleading will entail the dismissal of the application for eviction. (Vide Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1212 and Hasmai Rai v. Raghunathan Prasad. 4. The facts necessary therefor should be pleaded expressly. Absence of the necessary pleading will entail the dismissal of the application for eviction. (Vide Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1212 and Hasmai Rai v. Raghunathan Prasad. 4. In the present case, it is stated in paragraph-3 of the Original petition for eviction before the Rent Controller that the petitioner has obtained sanction from Ramanathapuram Municipality for constructing rooms above the petition shop and adjacent shops and converting the petition shop into a reception room and, therefore the petition shop is required bona-fide for the own use of the petitioner. There is absolutely no other averment in the petition with reference to the bona-fide requirement. The petition proceeds on the footing that the rooms for the construction of which sanction had been obtained were not construct at the time of the filing of the petition. Nothing has been stated in the petition as to the non-availability of any space to be utilised as reception room and the necessity for converting the petition shop into a reception room Ex. A-2 is the plan sanctioned by the Municipality which consists of two parts. The first part relates to the ground floor and the second part to the first floor. As per the plan, the proposal is to construct several rooms in the ground floor to the north of the existing shops. Besides the rooms, there is a provision for a big hall to a length of 14.93 metres on the western side. The width of the hall, though not specifically mentioned therein, exceeds 336 metres. The petition shop is indicated as reception hall and its measurements as per the plan are 5.50m. x 2.50m. On the west of the petition shop, the existing staircase is shown and as per the plan, it is to be removed. The new stair case proposed to be built is shown at a distance of 2.10 metres from the western end of the building. In between the stair case and the western wall, the space is shown as passage. The width of the passage at the northern end is only 2.10 metres. The plan for the first floor shows, that the proposal is to construct rooms in the front side over and above the existing shops. In between the stair case and the western wall, the space is shown as passage. The width of the passage at the northern end is only 2.10 metres. The plan for the first floor shows, that the proposal is to construct rooms in the front side over and above the existing shops. There is nothing in the pleading as to why the petitioner did not and could not plan to have the reception hall in any place other than the petition shop. 5. Even if it can be said that on the date of the petition the petitioner not having commenced the construction, was not occupying any building of his own for purposes of his lodging business, the situation has changed subsequently after the construction of the rooms in the first floor on the front side of the stair case. The plan did not indicate the closure on the north, south and west of the portion wherein the stair case is situated, for utilisation of the same as a room. However, during the pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner admittedly closed the portion on all sides by having a rolling shutter on the south and a wall with a door on the north. At this stage it is necessary to refer to a discrepancy in the matter of direction as found in the plan Ex A.2 and the later records including the plans and reports of the commissioner. According to Ex. A-2, the petition shop and the other shops are situated on the south and the proposed construction of the room in the ground-floor is to be on the north of the shops and the hotel (Arya Bhavan hotel) is situated in the west. This appears to be a mistake as all the subsequent records show that the shops are situated on the north abutting the road and Arya Bhavan Hotel is on the east of the petition shop and other shops. The rolling shutter referred to earlier is situated on the north at the entrance from the road. Hereinafter, I will be referring to the situation of the portion of the property only in accordance with the direction contained in the Commissioners' reports and the plans filed by them. 6. The rolling shutter referred to earlier is situated on the north at the entrance from the road. Hereinafter, I will be referring to the situation of the portion of the property only in accordance with the direction contained in the Commissioners' reports and the plans filed by them. 6. As the petitioner converted the stair case portion or rather the portion situated between the petition shop and Arya Bhavan Hotel on the east, into a room, the respondent came out with the case that the bona fide requirement of the petition shop even if it had existed at the time of the filing of the petition, had come to an end with the construction of the said room during the pendency of the proceedings. I do not think it necessary in the case to consider separately whether the bona fide requirement of the petitioner existed at the time of the filing of the petition and whether it has come to an end during the pendency of the proceedings. I would prefer to advert to the position as on date, and decide whether the petitions has made out a case of bona fide requirement. 8. When the matter was pending before the Rent Controller in the first instance, a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises and make a report as to the measurements of the premises and the physical features thereof. He filed a report and two additional reports. It is seen therefore that the petition shop measures 8' x 18' 1/2'. It is also reported by the said commissioner that the hall in the first floor situated between the petition building and Arya Bhavan Hotel on the east is of the following measurements: Length of the northern wall 10 feet, southern wall 17'.2", eastern wall 17'.6", western wall 18'.3". The hall is situated adjacent to the rooms constructed over and above the shops. Any person who goes up the staircase will step into the hall. Admittedly, the hall is to be retained permanently by the petitioner and it is not a temporary construction. The petitioner examined an Engineer on his side as P.W.3 who has filed a report and a plan. The report is marked as Ex.A-19 and the plan is marked as Ex.A-18. He has indicated the portions to be removed in green colour. Admittedly, the hall is to be retained permanently by the petitioner and it is not a temporary construction. The petitioner examined an Engineer on his side as P.W.3 who has filed a report and a plan. The report is marked as Ex.A-19 and the plan is marked as Ex.A-18. He has indicated the portions to be removed in green colour. Even according to Ex.A-18, the portions to be removed are only in the ground floor and no portion of the first floor is intended to be temporary and' removed. Thus, the petitioner is admittedly having a large space adjacent to the rooms built by him to be used for lodging purposes. The report of the Commissioner marked at Ex. C-6 and the plan filed by him marked as Ex.C-7 show that there are two cupboards on the eastern wall of the hall and a window on the southern wall and a window on the northern wall. According to Ex.C-6, the main meter board is on the western wall of the hall and the fuse carriers are found in that board. There is another board containing five switches and one plug. It was represented to the Commissioner by the respondent that the situation of the meter board, fuse carries and switches in the hall in the first floor would indicate that it was intended to be used by the manager of the lodge for his office. Though the petitioner denied the same, before the Commissioner, the contention of the respondent appears to be probable. As at present, rooms have been constructed only in the first floor above the existing shops. No rooms have been constructed behind the shops to the south of them. Hence, in the normal course, the reception hall should be situated in the first floor adjacent to the rooms. 7. There is a good deal of controversy as to whether the room in the ground floor in the place situated between Arya Bhavan Hotel and the petition shop in temporary or permanent. According to the report of the commissioner appointed by the Rent Controller, the physical, features indicate that the room is not temporary. According to the evidence of the petitioner and his Engineer P.W.3, it is only a temporary construction and the walls can always be removed without any danger to the first floor as the entire building is constructed with R.C.C. columns and beams. According to the evidence of the petitioner and his Engineer P.W.3, it is only a temporary construction and the walls can always be removed without any danger to the first floor as the entire building is constructed with R.C.C. columns and beams. According to P.W.3, the rolling shutter and the door on the southern side besides the wall can be removed at any time. It is also the case of the petitioner that the five steps in the stair cases are intended to be removed and the stair case is going to be built in a different manner. That is not, however, found in the sanctioned plan. There is no evidence on the side of the petitioner to show that he has obtained any permission for deviation. With reference to the stair case, the evidence of the petitioner is discrepant and inconsistent. When he was examined in the first instance before the Rent Controller he deposed that he would demolish the eastern wall of the petitioner shop and build the stair case in that place. Even that deposition was not in accordance with the sanctioned plan Ex.A-2. When he was examined later after my order dated 30.9.1988, he gave a contrary version that there was no intention to build the stair case in the petition shop. Even the admitted features of the existing building in the ground floor probabalise that the structure is not temporary and it is intended to be permanent. Admittedly, the electrical wiring is a concealed one and taken though the walls. The walls which are said to be temporary are of the same size and type as the other admitted permanent walls. As admitted by P.W.3 the stair case has been built up with concrete slabs inserted into the wall C.C.B. in Ex.C-7. If as contended by the petitioner the room in the ground floor is only a temporary structure for the purpose of storing building materials, the petitioner would not have incurred considerable expenditure to construct walls and put up doors for that purpose. He admits that when he built the shops (13 in all), he had a separate thatched shed and kept the building materials therein. He admitted further that after constructing seven shops he stored the cement bags in one of the shops. He admits that when he built the shops (13 in all), he had a separate thatched shed and kept the building materials therein. He admitted further that after constructing seven shops he stored the cement bags in one of the shops. The version that the petitioner intends to use the space in the ground floor between the petition shop and Arya Bhavan Hotel as a passage for vehicles to go to the open space situated behind the shops does not seem to be acceptable in view of the plan ExA-2 and the conversion of the space into a room with pucca walls, rolling shutter and a wooden door. The space between Arya Bhavan Hotel, and the stair case, as indicated in Ex.A-2, plan, being only 2.10 metre, is not sufficient for vehicles to pass through. 8. It is also admitted by the petitioner that after the filing of the petition, he let out a shop which became vacant to "Bombay Bakery". No explanation has been given by him as to why the said shop could not be used as a reception hall for the proposed lodge. A reading of the entire evidence leads irresistingly to the conclusion that the petitioner does not speak the truth. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has got at his disposal a space much larger than the area of the space covered by the petition shop, it has to be held that the petitioner has not made out a case of bona fide requirement for purposes of sustaining an application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rerit Control) Act. There is considerable force in the contention of learned Counsel for the respondent that the petition for eviction itself is not maintainable as the petitioner is not eligible to seek eviction under the said Sub-section, as he is in occupation of a non-residential building of his own for purposes of his lodging business. In any event, the petitioner has failed to prove bona fide requirement as laid down by the Supreme Court in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar. 9. As regards the other ground on which eviction was sought, the petitioner is in a worse position. In his petition he alleged that the respondent orally agreed not to put up a oven in the petition shop. 9. As regards the other ground on which eviction was sought, the petitioner is in a worse position. In his petition he alleged that the respondent orally agreed not to put up a oven in the petition shop. The respondent in his counter denied the use of any oven in the shop and claimed that he was preparing tea and coffee in another premises and bringing the same to the petition premises and that he was using a stove to heat the same. Giving up the case of oral agreement the petitioner thought fit to produce a document marked as Ex.A-1 alleging it to be a rental muchalika executed by the respondent. The signature in the said document was denied, by the respondent. The Courts below have rightly disbelieved the version of the petitioner as regards Ex.A-1. The courts below also relied on the report of the Commissioner which proves that the respondent was not using any oven in the petition shop. There is absolute nothing on record to support the case of the petitioner, that the respondent is guilty of acts of waste. The concurrent finding of the courts below on this aspect of the matter is unassailable. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.